The Impact of the Seat of Arbitration on Judicial-Interference: Do Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 regarding Challenges of Awards Make London An Attractive Hub?

Abstract

There are various determinants that induce London to be the favourable seat. In this regard, the grounds for challenging an award have some severe implications on determining London as the arbitral seat.1 Arbitrations with a London seat are exercised under the ‘supervisory jurisdiction’2 of the English courts and the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996).3 That is to say, any challenge to an interim or final award made by the arbitrators may be fulfilled in the courts of the location chosen as the arbitral seat. The consensual nature of international arbitration depends on certain core principles such as party autonomy, judicial nonintervention and finality of the arbitral awards. Nonetheless, the binding aspect of the arbitral award and its enforceability akin to that of final judgements of national courts necessitate some “balanced” degree of judicial supervision.